Users unhappy with Gmail anti-virus

Last week Google added an anti-virus feature to Gmail that has annoyed a few people. The annoyances stem not from the service, but from the restrictions that seem to have come with it.

Before Gmail had an anti-virus feature in place, Google decided it would just block all executable file attachments. Now, even with the anti-virus as part of the service, Google has decided to continue to enforce the no-executables policy, and some see this as redundant and an inconvenience.

Users also cannot turn the anti-virus service off at any time. This makes it difficult for users to legitimately send infected files to anti-virus companies for reporting and investigation purposes, as well as for the AV companies on the receiving end of such reports.

Other users are annoyed that Google withheld the name of the company providing the anti-virus solution. Some believe they have a right to know which company is protecting their e-mail so they can then find the pros and cons of its protection.

MATTHEW’S OPINION
I don’t see why people have such a big problem with what Google has done. The first two complaints can be overcome by using a simple archiving utility to compress the files before you send. I suppose this can be seen as an inconvenience, but it also has the benefit of a smaller e-mail attachment size.

The complaint about not knowing which company supplies virus protection is pretty ridiculous. Why do people need to know this? There is a positive to not knowing as well. If a flaw is found in the company’s anti-virus software, the virus writers have no way of knowing if they can exploit it over the Gmail service; they could try, but they could be wasting their time. The anonymity doesn’t affect the users of Gmail in any way, so there is no need to tell the user which company supplies the solution.

I am happy Google retained the no-executables policy and added anti-virus protection on top of this. Users will be forced to send more secure e-mails with archived attachments, and that is good news for the Internet, where viruses spread over e-mail like wildfire. Since Gmail is so popular, it seems like a very wise choice to double up on protection rather than just replace an existing–if limited–solution.

USER COMMENTS 24 comment(s)

Complainers(9:45am EST Mon Dec 05 2005)
Google’s Gmail is free. If you don’t like it, you can get free elsewhere, or pay elsewhere, and they you have a right to bitch.

My Gmail account has 57,000 e-mails in the Spam folder, which only keeps the last 30 days. All my various accounts funnel into it, and not having to wade through thousands of junk mails per day saves me a lot of time.

So many people want everything handed to them on a plate. I’ll say it again, Gmail is FREE. – by ToeKnee

Zipping doesn’t work(9:50am EST Mon Dec 05 2005)
“The first two complaints can be overcome by using a simple archiving utility to compress the files before you send.”

Nope. Zip files are executable and are blocked. You can change the extension to something else (like “notzip”, then tell the recipient to change it back. It’s a hassle, but hey, free 2+ GB email. – by CHM

Re: CHM(10:30am EST Mon Dec 05 2005)
ZIP files ARE not executable. But they may be blocked anyway…

The easiest way around is just to change the file extension…

Not that anyone knows what a file extension is anymore anyway…I recall a doucherocket that ran

“Britney spears-toxic.VBS”

They got precisely what they deserved.– by Terminally Cranky

Gmail IS freely available…(10:41am EST Mon Dec 05 2005)
…if you have enough friends, one of which can send you an invite. Most of us who have had it a while have 100, and when we send one out, it bumps back up to 100 within days.

If you live in a cave, however… too bad. – by Edge

Gmail Zips(11:00am EST Mon Dec 05 2005)
They aren’t blocked, at least in my experience. I sent some to my Gmail account just last week. As for blocking executables, I think that’s a good idea. If people weren’t used to sending and receiving legitimate .exe files, then virus emails with these attachments would be more recognizable for what they are. – by JRink

freely…(11:01am EST Mon Dec 05 2005)
freely available, and free. An incredibly good distribution system devised by Google, actually. Keep it in beta, spread through limited invites (maintains aura of “exclusivity”), give virtually unlimited storage (ever increasing… mine is up to 2.7 GB now, I don’t see ever coming close), have an incredibly easy to use, fast loading, yet powerful interface, a great Spam filter, virus blocking (not that it matters much to us Mac users), and offer SSL authorization on both POP and SMTP for security in wireless environments.

Non-tech users have little reason to be sending executables (and so many Zip files have been covers for viruses, which is why they’re blocked). Technically oriented probably have multiple FTP accounts for transferring files anyway, or changing the extention to .ppt seems to work for me. I don’t see what all the hullabaloo is here.

Now, if you want to talk *privacy* issues, there are big ones. I personally thing Google is doing the largest AI experiment ever. Between the knowledge stored in Google’s web directory and the collective behavioral knowledge that can be parsed by going through all the Gmail archives, the Skynet doomsday possibility looms larger. The Googlenators will destroy us all. – by ToeKnee

One big annoyance(12:05pm EST Mon Dec 05 2005)
I support the idea of them scanning an exe attachment before sending it. That would be an ideal solution instead of simply outright blocking it, which is very annoying. I can’t stand zip programs because I find them redundant. Why zip something to save 5% disk space and shave a few seconds off broadband transmissions. I especially hate when people zip up a large file into multiple files. That includes all you RAR users making 100 10mb files and then putting them on Bit Torrent. Its actually faster to share a 1Gb file then 100 smaller files.

Asside from that, I think Google is falling behind with GMail. I have used a slew of other 3rd party webmail clients for email which are far better then GMail that include AJAX support for a more application like approach to email over the web. Google seems to have written themselves into a corner with Gmail. At 2+ years for a beta, they will have to rewrite the entire site to support the same advanced features from Yahoo or Kerio MailServer.

This is one Google service that is quickly becoming obsolete, and I think Google is spreading themselves too thin by adhereing to the service-of-the-month mentality. A Jack-of-all-trades can’t be a master of any, Google will fall behind in maps, email, and search by insisting on implementing other minor trivial services. – by Topher

free is free(12:42pm EST Mon Dec 05 2005)
If you don’t like what they’re doing… stop using it. Get a Yahoo email account – it’s pretty good at 1Gb and free as well.
I guess some people would bitch about a free meal. – by gmail user

Don’t cry…(12:42pm EST Mon Dec 05 2005)
Just use AOL like all of the other fruits out there.

“Users also cannot turn the anti-virus service off at any time. This makes it difficult for users to legitimately send infected files to anti-virus companies for reporting and investigation purposes, as well as for the AV companies on the receiving end of such reports”

What? If Goolge doesn’t allow exe’s, how would these people get them in the first place? – by Tard Spotter

Man(2:27pm EST Mon Dec 05 2005)
It’s a shame that google is trying to protect the end user… with anti-virus and stuff … If they are stupid enough to click on any attachements, then they deserve the windows re-installation …

I thought google was cool.

Yeah, BTW, Gmail is free, if you don’t like it, setup ur own SMTP and POP server, and download, study, and foward your own virus to end users.
Simple as that.– by Greg

I can see…(3:28pm EST Mon Dec 05 2005)
Wanting to know who the AV provider is. The statement “If a flaw is found in the company’s anti-virus software, the virus writers have no way of knowing if they can exploit it over the Gmail service they could try, but they could be wasting their time.” is rather short sighted in today’s day. The “exploiter” doesn’t have to know (or not know) that there’s an openning in Gmail’s AV to be able to take advantage of it. All it would take is one email going to a Gmail account, and with the right coding, it’s all over the server(s). Besides, it doesn’t take any more effort to send out an infected email to 2 million addresses (assuming 1 mil are Gmail) than it does to 1 million. It’s all list based anyway.

– by PitViper

Change the extension(3:40pm EST Mon Dec 05 2005)
There is a simple solution, change the extension of the file so that the antivirus program does not know what it is. This works to get around the exe block on msn – by Computergeek1200

gmail(6:38pm EST Mon Dec 05 2005)
i’m not going to whine about gmail since i don’t use it.

But i don’t think zipping and renaming files would always work.
what kind of anti virus doesn’t scan compressed files?
if you rename them, aren’t all files have headers/footers that makes it still recognizable.
common compression such as zip and rars has headers and/or footers. – by my2cents

I’m getting rather sick…(8:16pm EST Mon Dec 05 2005)
of Google’s aloof attitude. I simply don’t buy the excuse that not revealing the name of the AV vendor makes users more safe. The service itself isn’t directly accessible from the Internet it’s intergrated in to Google’s webserver. The idea that a vulnerability could be exploited strikes me as just a weak attempt to make excuses on their behalf.

It’s possible to find who provides AV services for Hotmail (TrendMicro) just by looking through the help. While I honestly can’t see why a user would care, if they ask, I can’t understand why the would refuse. People need to be able to trust the services they use on the Internet if knowing who provides AV scanning enables them to have that level of trust, then so be it.

Google has been persistently coy about their plans, expecting us to take whatever nuggets of news they release as treasures we should be damn greatful for receiving. I understand the competitive nature of their business, but beyond a reasonable point it’s simply self-indulgent. – by exGooglephile

Its already been said, but….(2:18am EST Tue Dec 06 2005)
Any executable file will be blocked, zipped or not. Haven’t tried renaming the extension yet, shall have to try that one. I don’t hugely care WHO”s providing the virus protection, but I’d like to know the name just so I know who they’re trusting to check, cause there are some I don’t trust! – by RC

extension(7:27am EST Tue Dec 06 2005)
I zipped an .exe and changed .zip to .ppt and it went through fine.

I don’t care what Google does with Gmail, really. I will never depend on it entirely, and it’s wise not to. They give the service for free, and we are not forced to use it. I think the dual prong of blocking executables and virus checking will help stop new breakouts of viruses not in the scanners’ databases. – by ToeKnee